Aspen considers encroachment fee increases

Aspen City Council on Tuesday weighed a proposed fee adjustment outlined in a memorandum that touches on various services.

Concerns about the impact on lower-income residents, however, surfaced. The memorandum details revisions to fees under city municipal code alongside a separate ordinance addressing utility rates, both of which are slated for review.

Aspen Budget Manager Matt Grau said parking penalty fees will stay the same as approved in the 2025 budget, but there are additional towing and impound fees imposed. Aspen’s towing fee is $160. For parking, it’s $50 for first offense, $100 for second, and $200 for third.

---

---

“Based on research from an industry vendor, municipalities aim for a collection fee for parking tickets of around 45%,” Grau said. “The city of Aspen greatly exceeded industry standards with an 85% to 90% collection rate.” 

He said those collected fees account for 3% of overall parking revenue. Aspen Mayor Torre agreed that fee collections are exceeding expectations.

---

---

City staff and council examine and adjust fees each year during the budget process. Traditionally, these adjustments have been limited to inflationary increases of up to 5%. But given the recent surge in inflation over the past two years, staff have proposed more substantial changes to account for rising costs affecting service delivery.

City Council member Bill Guth brought up the increase in right-of-way encroachment fees. 

A right of way permit is necessary for projects involving excavation or any alterations within the public right of way. This permit applies to activities such as installing utility lines, repairing or constructing sidewalks and driveways, conducting extensive landscaping — including hardscaping — within the right of way, and installing earth retention systems that encroach into this area.

“The proposed increase is going from $9 a square foot per month to $20 a square foot per month,” he said. “I believe these fees would take effect immediately and could be a very significant financial change for someone in the middle of construction.”

He brought up concerns about these fees being applied for the water line replacements that will affect some unfortunate residents.

“We should really consider leaving these fees where they are or consider a gradual increase over time, to help ease this burden,” he said. 

Some of the most significant revisions extend beyond standard inflationary adjustments. For instance, the Parks and Recreation Department has adopted a cost-recovery model for many services, a shift based on analysis and community discussions earlier this year.

The Aspen Police Department’s fee increases for case reviews and audio or video analyses reflect the growing time demands of these services, while parking fees now include new penalties for overstaying limits at electric vehicle charging stations. Engineering fees have also transitioned to a flat or per-square-foot structure to simplify permitting.

Council members, however, have expressed reservations, particularly when it comes to fees that could disproportionately affect residents with limited financial resources.

In budget meetings, the council highlighted concerns about balancing cost recovery with the need to ensure accessibility to city services. Adjustments, like introducing modest fees for day camps in city parks or raising towing charges to match vendor increases, drew mixed reactions from both city council and community members.

Chris Bryan, a local attorney at Garfield & Hecht, said during public comment that the proposed fee hikes are significantly more than they have been in the past.  

“I spoke with council about these fee increases in 2019. I think it is absolutely a shame that there is no rational explanation for these right-of-way increases per square foot,” Bryan said. “There has been no explanation by city staff for this increase, nor a mathematical analysis. We do not understand where that $20 came from. It feels like it was pulled out of thin air.” 

He said that the last time the city council did an increase for right of way per square foot, the price went from $6.50 to $6.93 in 2016.

“You are treating parking spaces for construction work differently than parking spaces for nonconstruction work,” he said. “Part of that is for safety that is required by the city, but the incentive argument does not add up. You call this an encroachment fee to recover costs, but what services are you providing?”

City Council member Ward Hauenstein agreed with Bryan.

“I would recommend that the fees for parking and residential remain where they are,” Hauenstein said. “I could see increasing the cost of commercial parking, but not for residents. Increasing the cost to current construction projects just does not seem right.”

Torre said that in the downtown core, the city charges for parking from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m., coming out to $40 a day.

“So it’s $40 for parking your car all day. It is $80 for construction blocking out those parking spots for the duration of the project,” he said. “That $40 a day is for people shopping, dinner, and enjoying downtown. I think the $80 a day for construction is totally different.”

He said that construction hurts businesses and other people wanting to visit downtown or for locals who live there. 

Guth said that construction is normally done by 5-6 p.m. each day, and those spots become free afterward. He proposed the idea of timed signage to help these parking spots be shared more easily.

Torre said there is a way to move forward with the fee structure but revisit the encroachment fees in 2025. Hauenstein agreed that the encroachment fees should be removed for now, and that this should be brought back to discussion at a later date.

A motion was proposed to approve the fees as it relates to encroachment fees per square foot, per day, and address some of the proposed changes offered by Guth, such as setting daily parking rates for both city and construction costs at $100 per day — up from $40 and $80, respectively. 

City council is keeping the option open to make amendments at a later date, if needed. Torre and City Council member John Doyle opposed. The motion passed three to two.